Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441715 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #585 on: March 25, 2017, 01:57:35 AM »
Are missiles going to be "balanced" or rather are other weapon types going to become more useful in more situations?

I think that railguns should have unlimited range but should be dependent on how advanced your fire control computer is to determine how far away it can shoot accurately. Speed, distance and tonnage should play a role in how accurate the shot is, so at 1 million KM it can shoot a 1000 ton vessel going <500 KM/s at 100% accuracy etc. This would be a low end computer, I believe that beam weapons should be feasible from farther away, with a super advanced fire control being able to fire at a target accurately

I'll also reiterate my idea about being able to size up beam weapon components like you can sensors with tech advancements making them more efficient, not larger.

This has been suggested many times, but beam weapons range is hard locked by the speed of light. Honestly, from a realism point of view they're probably excessive as is; even with a laser shooting a dodging target when the beam takes 5 seconds to arrive is going to be effectively impossible. No level of advanced computer is going to be able to predict random movement.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #586 on: March 25, 2017, 03:21:12 AM »
Are missiles going to be "balanced" or rather are other weapon types going to become more useful in more situations?

I think that railguns should have unlimited range but should be dependent on how advanced your fire control computer is to determine how far away it can shoot accurately. Speed, distance and tonnage should play a role in how accurate the shot is, so at 1 million KM it can shoot a 1000 ton vessel going <500 KM/s at 100% accuracy etc. This would be a low end computer, I believe that beam weapons should be feasible from farther away, with a super advanced fire control being able to fire at a target accurately

I'll also reiterate my idea about being able to size up beam weapon components like you can sensors with tech advancements making them more efficient, not larger.

I would really like for some changes in this direction. To make missiles less the "I WIN BUTTON" they are right now.

It makes for a boring situation. I do limit their usage a LOT by my own choice but still, it would be better if other weapons were more viable.


I think the main problem lies in how hard to intercept they are, and especially how there is no defense against missiles launched from within the 5-seconds range. And how it's hard to defend against boxed launchers. It is a limitation of the engine, because the shortest possible interval is 5 seconds. I understand that.

But it DOES make missiles extremely unbalanced.

This has been suggested many times, but beam weapons range is hard locked by the speed of light. Honestly, from a realism point of view they're probably excessive as is; even with a laser shooting a dodging target when the beam takes 5 seconds to arrive is going to be effectively impossible. No level of advanced computer is going to be able to predict random movement.

The problem is not really the range, but rather the 5-second interval which does not allow beam weapons to shoot at incoming missile targets multiple times. Like it should be possible to do instead. Maybe with a specifically built version, but it should be possible

Also, a very important thing which is not modeled by the game right now. Weapons like railguns have effectively an infinite range, because the bullet keeps going in the void. So, I should theorically be able to use them to hit stationary targets from infinite distance.

There is no logical nor physical reason for which I can't use a railgun to shoot your immobile sorium harvesters from the other side of the system. Same goes for your orbital stations in a a geostationary orbit, or your shipyards. Just calculate the trajectory, and I should be able to shoot them from the other side of the solar system. Or at least, from very very far away. Because, you know, they do NOT move.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 03:47:35 AM by Zincat »
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #587 on: March 25, 2017, 04:57:37 AM »
My experience is rather different.. I find missiles strictly optional, and most of the time not worth the logistics overhead.

I also don't think box launchers are a problem... in fact, I think the current system works well in that a missile-based power needs to decide whether they want to overwhelm PD with large concentrated strikes (simple but expensive in terms of ordnance) or many simultaneous volleys (requires designing around, usually requiring sacrifices in overall capability or a high upfront cost).

Balance of point-blank missile fire vs. long-ranged beam weapons looks perfectly fine to me; I played around with it but found purpose-built ships a cool niche rather than something I'd rely on; with more conventional ships it's a legit desperation tactic but hardly impressive.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #588 on: March 25, 2017, 05:55:29 AM »
Also, a very important thing which is not modeled by the game right now. Weapons like railguns have effectively an infinite range, because the bullet keeps going in the void. So, I should theorically be able to use them to hit stationary targets from infinite distance.

There is no logical nor physical reason for which I can't use a railgun to shoot your immobile sorium harvesters from the other side of the system. Same goes for your orbital stations in a a geostationary orbit, or your shipyards. Just calculate the trajectory, and I should be able to shoot them from the other side of the solar system. Or at least, from very very far away. Because, you know, they do NOT move.

The problem is that if I added this, players would want the ability for every ship to make small random course changes, or add tiny manoeuvring thrusters to shipyards, etc. so they could regularly make small positional changes. In the end (apart from planets), we would be back where we are now but with a lot more complexity. Even if we added this ability to target planets, it would also make sense to add a new range of defences designed to intercept long-range kinetic projectiles.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #589 on: March 25, 2017, 11:15:46 AM »
The problem is that if I added this, players would want the ability for every ship to make small random course changes, or add tiny manoeuvring thrusters to shipyards, etc. so they could regularly make small positional changes. In the end (apart from planets), we would be back where we are now but with a lot more complexity. Even if we added this ability to target planets, it would also make sense to add a new range of defences designed to intercept long-range kinetic projectiles.
So I get that for the purposes of the game railguns range is limited by how far the projectile can travel in 5 seconds. But does that necessarily mean that the range cannot be improve? From what I remember the maximum range of a high end railgun was something like 1 million km. Would it really be that bad to bump it up to 10 million? It still outranged by every offensive missile.

What do you think about the idea of being able to scale up rail-gun components (capacitors, launch-velocity, and caliber) like you can with sensors with technology only increasing efficiency? 
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #590 on: March 25, 2017, 11:38:49 AM »
So I get that for the purposes of the game railguns range is limited by how far the projectile can travel in 5 seconds. But does that necessarily mean that the range cannot be improve? From what I remember the maximum range of a high end railgun was something like 1 million km. Would it really be that bad to bump it up to 10 million? It still outranged by every offensive missile.

What do you think about the idea of being able to scale up rail-gun components (capacitors, launch-velocity, and caliber) like you can with sensors with technology only increasing efficiency?

It is a limitation of light speed, rather than projectile speed. To cover 10m km in 5 seconds, the projectile would be travelling at almost seven times the speed of light.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #591 on: March 25, 2017, 12:19:24 PM »
It is a limitation of light speed, rather than projectile speed. To cover 10m km in 5 seconds, the projectile would be travelling at almost seven times the speed of light.

Well we already have transnewtonian elements, why can't they be boosted to faster-than-light speeds with that?
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #592 on: March 25, 2017, 12:19:54 PM »
The problem is that if I added this, players would want the ability for every ship to make small random course changes, or add tiny manoeuvring thrusters to shipyards, etc. so they could regularly make small positional changes. In the end (apart from planets), we would be back where we are now but with a lot more complexity. Even if we added this ability to target planets, it would also make sense to add a new range of defences designed to intercept long-range kinetic projectiles.

I understand how this might cause problems. However it is a fact that non-missile weapons are severely penalized by how the game calculates things. The two main causes are in my opinion the 5-second increment and the hard range cap of 1.5 million km on all "beam weapons".

Because of these two things, if we look at things strictly from an efficiency-related point of view, missiles are better against the AI. Simply because you can build ships that the AI cannot deal with, either because of PD saturation or range or speed or whatever. You can do that with "beam weapons " as well, but it requires a lot more effort.

Of course it is different with roleplay, and I do roleplay. I just wish that "beam weapons" would be more generically useful (as they would be in reality) without me having to resort to self-imposed rules and RP.


EDIT: if range is out of the question, then perhaps an acceptable solution could be to make "beam weapons" cheaper, either in build cost or preferrably in size (more miniaturization). Which would allow to cram more firepower on a "beam warship". I don't know, just trying to think about how more balance might be achieved.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 12:29:38 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #593 on: March 25, 2017, 02:02:49 PM »
I understand how this might cause problems. However it is a fact that non-missile weapons are severely penalized by how the game calculates things. The two main causes are in my opinion the 5-second increment and the hard range cap of 1.5 million km on all "beam weapons".

Because of these two things, if we look at things strictly from an efficiency-related point of view, missiles are better against the AI. Simply because you can build ships that the AI cannot deal with, either because of PD saturation or range or speed or whatever. You can do that with "beam weapons " as well, but it requires a lot more effort.

Of course it is different with roleplay, and I do roleplay. I just wish that "beam weapons" would be more generically useful (as they would be in reality) without me having to resort to self-imposed rules and RP.


EDIT: if range is out of the question, then perhaps an acceptable solution could be to make "beam weapons" cheaper, either in build cost or preferrably in size (more miniaturization). Which would allow to cram more firepower on a "beam warship". I don't know, just trying to think about how more balance might be achieved.

I'm not convinced that missiles are overpowered :)

They are tactically strong but strategically weak and you soon run through missile supplies in any prolonged conflict. Also, you can build some fairly missile-proof ships already so making beam weapons more effective would tilt the balance too much the other way.

The main issue I have with missiles is that they can take advantage of the 5 second increment to launch and hit without being detected, if the launching ship is close enough to the target. I will fix that in C# Aurora by detecting missiles at the point of launch (outside of the normal detection sequence). I will also try to make the automated design of NPR ships more intelligent, plus I will be adding some more spoiler races to the existing three.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue, misora, Detros

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #594 on: March 25, 2017, 02:36:12 PM »
The main issue I have with missiles is that they can take advantage of the 5 second increment to launch and hit without being detected, if the launching ship is close enough to the target. I will fix that in C# Aurora by detecting missiles at the point of launch (outside of the normal detection sequence).

That would go a long way in making things better, so I'm looking forward to that :)

I will also try to make the automated design of NPR ships more intelligent, plus I will be adding some more spoiler races to the existing three.

Now you're just being evil. Can I have a time machine? Pretty please? I really want to meet new and lethal. Overwhelmingly lethal cuddly foes :)
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #595 on: March 25, 2017, 03:01:44 PM »
Looking very much forward to better AI designs... giving the NPRs an advantage through game settings could compensate for some of the problems, but I found it rare to get a good challenge rather than "cakewalk", "almost impossible" or both (easy but involving numbers that'd turn the game into a full time job if you want to get on with it).
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1047 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #596 on: March 25, 2017, 05:02:31 PM »
Missiles aren't overpowered. The only "unfair" advantage they have is when launched inside the 5-second window, which can even at med tech levels be pretty long distance. CIWS still works even under that situation. As Steve said, unless you've been stockpiling massively and have built the collier ships to support your battle fleet, you'll run out of missiles pretty quickly. Furthermore, they require a significant infrastructure investment.

As for balance, I personally hate it. Balance should only worry designers of competitive multiplayer games, it doesn't belong to single-player games. Aurora has good amount of detail and options, these shouldn't be neutered for the purpose of balance. You can overwhelm the AI easily enough as it is.

Thirdly, as pointed out, any mobile unit can easily dodge any non-powered projectile or beam. And for planetary or base bombardment, their purpose would practically be same as missiles, except smaller and the attacker would never run out of ammunition. The game would need to track their path during their "flight", which adds an extra layer of computing - whether that would be an issue on C# Aurora I don't know - and it would also require a defensive system of sorts. So then we need special sensors to track kinetic projectiles and beam weapons to destroy them. In the end, the game would recreate the current missile vs beam combat scenario but in a situation that is infinitely more advantageous for the attacker because they don't have to worry about missile supply.
 
The following users thanked this post: Detros

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #597 on: March 25, 2017, 05:39:50 PM »
I have some thoughts on beam range and the balance between beams and missiles, but I don't think they're really relevant to C# changes. I could start a thread to discuss ideas in the suggestions forum if people want.

I will also try to make the automated design of NPR ships more intelligent, plus I will be adding some more spoiler races to the existing three.

A bit of a wild idea, but... I gather the NPRs use a sort of template system for designing ships, with spoilers either also using templates or just preset designs. Any chance that could be opened up to the players? We have a pretty thriving community of ship designers, after all.

I don't necessarily mean full "mod" support or anything, but if just the syntax of the templates were available and not too complex I bet there'd be lots of players willing to make doctrines/themes/what have you for NPRs that you could decide to include. Might be interesting if any NPR you encountered might have conventional ships, or might use some other player's box launcher/railgun barge designs, or some sort of missile pod carrier. Variety is the spice of life, after all :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Detros

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #598 on: March 25, 2017, 06:55:08 PM »
With the speed improvements that C# has given could increments be reduced to a second for combat resolution? Maybe it would add too much additional spam to the event log though.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline TheBawkHawk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 81
  • Thanked: 43 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #599 on: March 25, 2017, 07:04:18 PM »
Quote from: MarcAFK link=topic=8497. msg101997#msg101997 date=1490486108
With the speed improvements that C# has given could increments be reduced to a second for combat resolution? Maybe it would add too much additional spam to the event log though.

That would mean that energy weapon ranges would have to be cut by a fifth though, because of the lightspeed limit.